research proposal example systematic review

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide

Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide

Published on 15 June 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on 17 October 2022.

A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesise all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer.

They answered the question ‘What is the effectiveness of probiotics in reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?’

In this context, a probiotic is a health product that contains live microorganisms and is taken by mouth. Eczema is a common skin condition that causes red, itchy skin.

Table of contents

What is a systematic review, systematic review vs meta-analysis, systematic review vs literature review, systematic review vs scoping review, when to conduct a systematic review, pros and cons of systematic reviews, step-by-step example of a systematic review, frequently asked questions about systematic reviews.

A review is an overview of the research that’s already been completed on a topic.

What makes a systematic review different from other types of reviews is that the research methods are designed to reduce research bias . The methods are repeatable , and the approach is formal and systematic:

• Formulate a research question
• Develop a protocol
• Search for all relevant studies
• Apply the selection criteria
• Extract the data
• Synthesise the data
• Write and publish a report

Although multiple sets of guidelines exist, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews is among the most widely used. It provides detailed guidelines on how to complete each step of the systematic review process.

Systematic reviews are most commonly used in medical and public health research, but they can also be found in other disciplines.

Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesising all available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Synthesising means bringing together different information to tell a single, cohesive story. The synthesis can be narrative ( qualitative ), quantitative , or both.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Systematic reviews often quantitatively synthesise the evidence using a meta-analysis . A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis, not a type of review.

A meta-analysis is a technique to synthesise results from multiple studies. It’s a statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more studies, usually to estimate an effect size .

A literature review is a type of review that uses a less systematic and formal approach than a systematic review. Typically, an expert in a topic will qualitatively summarise and evaluate previous work, without using a formal, explicit method.

Although literature reviews are often less time-consuming and can be insightful or helpful, they have a higher risk of bias and are less transparent than systematic reviews.

Similar to a systematic review, a scoping review is a type of review that tries to minimise bias by using transparent and repeatable methods.

However, a scoping review isn’t a type of systematic review. The most important difference is the goal: rather than answering a specific question, a scoping review explores a topic. The researcher tries to identify the main concepts, theories, and evidence, as well as gaps in the current research.

Sometimes scoping reviews are an exploratory preparation step for a systematic review, and sometimes they are a standalone project.

A systematic review is a good choice of review if you want to answer a question about the effectiveness of an intervention , such as a medical treatment.

To conduct a systematic review, you’ll need the following:

• A precise question , usually about the effectiveness of an intervention. The question needs to be about a topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers. If there’s no previous research, there’s nothing to review.
• If you’re doing a systematic review on your own (e.g., for a research paper or thesis), you should take appropriate measures to ensure the validity and reliability of your research.
• Access to databases and journal archives. Often, your educational institution provides you with access.
• Time. A professional systematic review is a time-consuming process: it will take the lead author about six months of full-time work. If you’re a student, you should narrow the scope of your systematic review and stick to a tight schedule.
• Bibliographic, word-processing, spreadsheet, and statistical software . For example, you could use EndNote, Microsoft Word, Excel, and SPSS.

A systematic review has many pros .

• They minimise research b ias by considering all available evidence and evaluating each study for bias.
• Their methods are transparent , so they can be scrutinised by others.
• They’re thorough : they summarise all available evidence.
• They can be replicated and updated by others.

Systematic reviews also have a few cons .

• They’re time-consuming .
• They’re narrow in scope : they only answer the precise research question.

The 7 steps for conducting a systematic review are explained with an example.

Step 1: Formulate a research question

Formulating the research question is probably the most important step of a systematic review. A clear research question will:

• Allow you to more effectively communicate your research to other researchers and practitioners
• Guide your decisions as you plan and conduct your systematic review

A good research question for a systematic review has four components, which you can remember with the acronym PICO :

• Population(s) or problem(s)
• Intervention(s)
• Comparison(s)

You can rearrange these four components to write your research question:

• What is the effectiveness of I versus C for O in P ?

Sometimes, you may want to include a fourth component, the type of study design . In this case, the acronym is PICOT .

• Type of study design(s)
• The population of patients with eczema
• The intervention of probiotics
• In comparison to no treatment, placebo , or non-probiotic treatment
• The outcome of changes in participant-, parent-, and doctor-rated symptoms of eczema and quality of life
• Randomised control trials, a type of study design

Their research question was:

• What is the effectiveness of probiotics versus no treatment, a placebo, or a non-probiotic treatment for reducing eczema symptoms and improving quality of life in patients with eczema?

Step 2: Develop a protocol

A protocol is a document that contains your research plan for the systematic review. This is an important step because having a plan allows you to work more efficiently and reduces bias.

Your protocol should include the following components:

• Background information : Provide the context of the research question, including why it’s important.
• Research objective(s) : Rephrase your research question as an objective.
• Selection criteria: State how you’ll decide which studies to include or exclude from your review.
• Search strategy: Discuss your plan for finding studies.
• Analysis: Explain what information you’ll collect from the studies and how you’ll synthesise the data.

If you’re a professional seeking to publish your review, it’s a good idea to bring together an advisory committee . This is a group of about six people who have experience in the topic you’re researching. They can help you make decisions about your protocol.

It’s highly recommended to register your protocol. Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or ClinicalTrials.gov .

Step 3: Search for all relevant studies

Searching for relevant studies is the most time-consuming step of a systematic review.

To reduce bias, it’s important to search for relevant studies very thoroughly. Your strategy will depend on your field and your research question, but sources generally fall into these four categories:

• Databases: Search multiple databases of peer-reviewed literature, such as PubMed or Scopus . Think carefully about how to phrase your search terms and include multiple synonyms of each word. Use Boolean operators if relevant.
• Handsearching: In addition to searching the primary sources using databases, you’ll also need to search manually. One strategy is to scan relevant journals or conference proceedings. Another strategy is to scan the reference lists of relevant studies.
• Grey literature: Grey literature includes documents produced by governments, universities, and other institutions that aren’t published by traditional publishers. Graduate student theses are an important type of grey literature, which you can search using the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) . In medicine, clinical trial registries are another important type of grey literature.
• Experts: Contact experts in the field to ask if they have unpublished studies that should be included in your review.

At this stage of your review, you won’t read the articles yet. Simply save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA Generator .

• Databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, LILACS, and ISI Web of Science
• Handsearch: Conference proceedings and reference lists of articles
• Grey literature: The Cochrane Library, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and the Ongoing Skin Trials Register
• Experts: Authors of unpublished registered trials, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers of probiotics

Step 4: Apply the selection criteria

Applying the selection criteria is a three-person job. Two of you will independently read the studies and decide which to include in your review based on the selection criteria you established in your protocol . The third person’s job is to break any ties.

To increase inter-rater reliability , ensure that everyone thoroughly understands the selection criteria before you begin.

If you’re writing a systematic review as a student for an assignment, you might not have a team. In this case, you’ll have to apply the selection criteria on your own; you can mention this as a limitation in your paper’s discussion.

You should apply the selection criteria in two phases:

• Based on the titles and abstracts : Decide whether each article potentially meets the selection criteria based on the information provided in the abstracts.
• Based on the full texts: Download the articles that weren’t excluded during the first phase. If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask for a copy. Read the articles and decide which articles meet the selection criteria.

It’s very important to keep a meticulous record of why you included or excluded each article. When the selection process is complete, you can summarise what you did using a PRISMA flow diagram .

Next, Boyle and colleagues found the full texts for each of the remaining studies. Boyle and Tang read through the articles to decide if any more studies needed to be excluded based on the selection criteria.

When Boyle and Tang disagreed about whether a study should be excluded, they discussed it with Varigos until the three researchers came to an agreement.

Step 5: Extract the data

Extracting the data means collecting information from the selected studies in a systematic way. There are two types of information you need to collect from each study:

• Information about the study’s methods and results . The exact information will depend on your research question, but it might include the year, study design , sample size, context, research findings , and conclusions. If any data are missing, you’ll need to contact the study’s authors.
• Your judgement of the quality of the evidence, including risk of bias .

You should collect this information using forms. You can find sample forms in The Registry of Methods and Tools for Evidence-Informed Decision Making and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Working Group .

Extracting the data is also a three-person job. Two people should do this step independently, and the third person will resolve any disagreements.

They also collected data about possible sources of bias, such as how the study participants were randomised into the control and treatment groups.

Step 6: Synthesise the data

Synthesising the data means bringing together the information you collected into a single, cohesive story. There are two main approaches to synthesising the data:

• Narrative ( qualitative ): Summarise the information in words. You’ll need to discuss the studies and assess their overall quality.
• Quantitative : Use statistical methods to summarise and compare data from different studies. The most common quantitative approach is a meta-analysis , which allows you to combine results from multiple studies into a summary result.

Generally, you should use both approaches together whenever possible. If you don’t have enough data, or the data from different studies aren’t comparable, then you can take just a narrative approach. However, you should justify why a quantitative approach wasn’t possible.

Boyle and colleagues also divided the studies into subgroups, such as studies about babies, children, and adults, and analysed the effect sizes within each group.

Step 7: Write and publish a report

The purpose of writing a systematic review article is to share the answer to your research question and explain how you arrived at this answer.

Your article should include the following sections:

• Abstract : A summary of the review
• Introduction : Including the rationale and objectives
• Methods : Including the selection criteria, search method, data extraction method, and synthesis method
• Results : Including results of the search and selection process, study characteristics, risk of bias in the studies, and synthesis results
• Discussion : Including interpretation of the results and limitations of the review
• Conclusion : The answer to your research question and implications for practice, policy, or research

To verify that your report includes everything it needs, you can use the PRISMA checklist .

Once your report is written, you can publish it in a systematic review database, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , and/or in a peer-reviewed journal.

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a dissertation , thesis, research paper , or proposal .

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

• To familiarise yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
• To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
• To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
• To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
• To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Turney, S. (2022, October 17). Systematic Review | Definition, Examples & Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/systematic-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, exploratory research | definition, guide, & examples, what is peer review | types & examples.

How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses

Affiliations.

• 1 Behavioural Science Centre, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom; email: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom.
• 3 Department of Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA; email: [email protected].
• PMID: 30089228
• DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and presentation. They involve a comprehensive search to locate all relevant published and unpublished work on a subject; a systematic integration of search results; and a critique of the extent, nature, and quality of evidence in relation to a particular research question. The best reviews synthesize studies to draw broad theoretical conclusions about what a literature means, linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This guide describes how to plan, conduct, organize, and present a systematic review of quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative (narrative review, meta-synthesis) information. We outline core standards and principles and describe commonly encountered problems. Although this guide targets psychological scientists, its high level of abstraction makes it potentially relevant to any subject area or discipline. We argue that systematic reviews are a key methodology for clarifying whether and how research findings replicate and for explaining possible inconsistencies, and we call for researchers to conduct systematic reviews to help elucidate whether there is a replication crisis.

Keywords: evidence; guide; meta-analysis; meta-synthesis; narrative; systematic review; theory.

• Guidelines as Topic
• Meta-Analysis as Topic*
• Publication Bias
• Review Literature as Topic
• Systematic Reviews as Topic*

Systematic Review

• Library Help
• What is a Systematic Review (SR)?

Steps of a Systematic Review

• Framing a Research Question
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Searching the Literature
• Managing the Process
• Meta-analysis
• Publishing your Systematic Review

Forms and templates

Image: David Parmenter's Shop

• PICO Template
• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Database Search Log
• Review Matrix
• Cochrane Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

   • PRISMA Flow Diagram  - Record the numbers of retrieved references and included/excluded studies. You can use the Create Flow Diagram tool to automate the process.

   •  PRISMA Checklist - Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

• PROSPERO Template
• Manuscript Template
• Steps of SR (text)
• Steps of SR (visual)
• Steps of SR (PIECES)

Adapted from  A Guide to Conducting Systematic Reviews: Steps in a Systematic Review by Cornell University Library

Source: Cochrane Consumers and Communications  (infographics are free to use and licensed under Creative Commons )

Check the following visual resources titled " What Are Systematic Reviews?"

• Video  with closed captions available
• Animated Storyboard
• << Previous: What is a Systematic Review (SR)?
• Next: Framing a Research Question >>
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 12:47 PM
• URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Trop Med Health

A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data

Gehad mohamed tawfik.

1 Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

2 Online research Club, http://www.onlineresearchclub.org/

Kadek Agus Surya Dila

3 Pratama Giri Emas Hospital, Singaraja-Amlapura street, Giri Emas village, Sawan subdistrict, Singaraja City, Buleleng, Bali 81171 Indonesia

Muawia Yousif Fadlelmola Mohamed

4 Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan

Dao Ngoc Hien Tam

5 Nanogen Pharmaceutical Biotechnology Joint Stock Company, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Nguyen Dang Kien

6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Binh, Vietnam

Ali Mahmoud Ahmed

7 Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

Nguyen Tien Huy

8 Evidence Based Medicine Research Group & Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, 70000 Vietnam

9 Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, 70000 Vietnam

10 Department of Clinical Product Development, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Leading Graduate School Program, and Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8523 Japan

Associated Data

Not applicable.

The massive abundance of studies relating to tropical medicine and health has increased strikingly over the last few decades. In the field of tropical medicine and health, a well-conducted systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) is considered a feasible solution for keeping clinicians abreast of current evidence-based medicine. Understanding of SR/MA steps is of paramount importance for its conduction. It is not easy to be done as there are obstacles that could face the researcher. To solve those hindrances, this methodology study aimed to provide a step-by-step approach mainly for beginners and junior researchers, in the field of tropical medicine and other health care fields, on how to properly conduct a SR/MA, in which all the steps here depicts our experience and expertise combined with the already well-known and accepted international guidance.

We suggest that all steps of SR/MA should be done independently by 2–3 reviewers’ discussion, to ensure data quality and accuracy.

SR/MA steps include the development of research question, forming criteria, search strategy, searching databases, protocol registration, title, abstract, full-text screening, manual searching, extracting data, quality assessment, data checking, statistical analysis, double data checking, and manuscript writing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

The amount of studies published in the biomedical literature, especially tropical medicine and health, has increased strikingly over the last few decades. This massive abundance of literature makes clinical medicine increasingly complex, and knowledge from various researches is often needed to inform a particular clinical decision. However, available studies are often heterogeneous with regard to their design, operational quality, and subjects under study and may handle the research question in a different way, which adds to the complexity of evidence and conclusion synthesis [ 1 ].

Systematic review and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) have a high level of evidence as represented by the evidence-based pyramid. Therefore, a well-conducted SR/MA is considered a feasible solution in keeping health clinicians ahead regarding contemporary evidence-based medicine.

Differing from a systematic review, unsystematic narrative review tends to be descriptive, in which the authors select frequently articles based on their point of view which leads to its poor quality. A systematic review, on the other hand, is defined as a review using a systematic method to summarize evidence on questions with a detailed and comprehensive plan of study. Furthermore, despite the increasing guidelines for effectively conducting a systematic review, we found that basic steps often start from framing question, then identifying relevant work which consists of criteria development and search for articles, appraise the quality of included studies, summarize the evidence, and interpret the results [ 2 , 3 ]. However, those simple steps are not easy to be reached in reality. There are many troubles that a researcher could be struggled with which has no detailed indication.

Conducting a SR/MA in tropical medicine and health may be difficult especially for young researchers; therefore, understanding of its essential steps is crucial. It is not easy to be done as there are obstacles that could face the researcher. To solve those hindrances, we recommend a flow diagram (Fig. ​ (Fig.1) 1 ) which illustrates a detailed and step-by-step the stages for SR/MA studies. This methodology study aimed to provide a step-by-step approach mainly for beginners and junior researchers, in the field of tropical medicine and other health care fields, on how to properly and succinctly conduct a SR/MA; all the steps here depicts our experience and expertise combined with the already well known and accepted international guidance.

Detailed flow diagram guideline for systematic review and meta-analysis steps. Note : Star icon refers to “2–3 reviewers screen independently”

Methods and results

Detailed steps for conducting any systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched the methods reported in published SR/MA in tropical medicine and other healthcare fields besides the published guidelines like Cochrane guidelines {Higgins, 2011 #7} [ 4 ] to collect the best low-bias method for each step of SR/MA conduction steps. Furthermore, we used guidelines that we apply in studies for all SR/MA steps. We combined these methods in order to conclude and conduct a detailed flow diagram that shows the SR/MA steps how being conducted.

Any SR/MA must follow the widely accepted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement (PRISMA checklist 2009) (Additional file 5 : Table S1) [ 5 ].

We proposed our methods according to a valid explanatory simulation example choosing the topic of “evaluating safety of Ebola vaccine,” as it is known that Ebola is a very rare tropical disease but fatal. All the explained methods feature the standards followed internationally, with our compiled experience in the conduct of SR beside it, which we think proved some validity. This is a SR under conduct by a couple of researchers teaming in a research group, moreover, as the outbreak of Ebola which took place (2013–2016) in Africa resulted in a significant mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, since there are many published and ongoing trials assessing the safety of Ebola vaccines, we thought this would provide a great opportunity to tackle this hotly debated issue. Moreover, Ebola started to fire again and new fatal outbreak appeared in the Democratic Republic of Congo since August 2018, which caused infection to more than 1000 people according to the World Health Organization, and 629 people have been killed till now. Hence, it is considered the second worst Ebola outbreak, after the first one in West Africa in 2014 , which infected more than 26,000 and killed about 11,300 people along outbreak course.

Research question and objectives

Like other study designs, the research question of SR/MA should be feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant. Therefore, a clear, logical, and well-defined research question should be formulated. Usually, two common tools are used: PICO or SPIDER. PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) is used mostly in quantitative evidence synthesis. Authors demonstrated that PICO holds more sensitivity than the more specific SPIDER approach [ 6 ]. SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) was proposed as a method for qualitative and mixed methods search.

We here recommend a combined approach of using either one or both the SPIDER and PICO tools to retrieve a comprehensive search depending on time and resources limitations. When we apply this to our assumed research topic, being of qualitative nature, the use of SPIDER approach is more valid.

PICO is usually used for systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trial study. For the observational study (without intervention or comparator), in many tropical and epidemiological questions, it is usually enough to use P (Patient) and O (outcome) only to formulate a research question. We must indicate clearly the population (P), then intervention (I) or exposure. Next, it is necessary to compare (C) the indicated intervention with other interventions, i.e., placebo. Finally, we need to clarify which are our relevant outcomes.

To facilitate comprehension, we choose the Ebola virus disease (EVD) as an example. Currently, the vaccine for EVD is being developed and under phase I, II, and III clinical trials; we want to know whether this vaccine is safe and can induce sufficient immunogenicity to the subjects.

An example of a research question for SR/MA based on PICO for this issue is as follows: How is the safety and immunogenicity of Ebola vaccine in human? (P: healthy subjects (human), I: vaccination, C: placebo, O: safety or adverse effects)

Preliminary research and idea validation

We recommend a preliminary search to identify relevant articles, ensure the validity of the proposed idea, avoid duplication of previously addressed questions, and assure that we have enough articles for conducting its analysis. Moreover, themes should focus on relevant and important health-care issues, consider global needs and values, reflect the current science, and be consistent with the adopted review methods. Gaining familiarity with a deep understanding of the study field through relevant videos and discussions is of paramount importance for better retrieval of results. If we ignore this step, our study could be canceled whenever we find out a similar study published before. This means we are wasting our time to deal with a problem that has been tackled for a long time.

To do this, we can start by doing a simple search in PubMed or Google Scholar with search terms Ebola AND vaccine. While doing this step, we identify a systematic review and meta-analysis of determinant factors influencing antibody response from vaccination of Ebola vaccine in non-human primate and human [ 7 ], which is a relevant paper to read to get a deeper insight and identify gaps for better formulation of our research question or purpose. We can still conduct systematic review and meta-analysis of Ebola vaccine because we evaluate safety as a different outcome and different population (only human).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Eligibility criteria are based on the PICO approach, study design, and date. Exclusion criteria mostly are unrelated, duplicated, unavailable full texts, or abstract-only papers. These exclusions should be stated in advance to refrain the researcher from bias. The inclusion criteria would be articles with the target patients, investigated interventions, or the comparison between two studied interventions. Briefly, it would be articles which contain information answering our research question. But the most important is that it should be clear and sufficient information, including positive or negative, to answer the question.

For the topic we have chosen, we can make inclusion criteria: (1) any clinical trial evaluating the safety of Ebola vaccine and (2) no restriction regarding country, patient age, race, gender, publication language, and date. Exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) study of Ebola vaccine in non-human subjects or in vitro studies; (2) study with data not reliably extracted, duplicate, or overlapping data; (3) abstract-only papers as preceding papers, conference, editorial, and author response theses and books; (4) articles without available full text available; and (5) case reports, case series, and systematic review studies. The PRISMA flow diagram template that is used in SR/MA studies can be found in Fig. ​ Fig.2 2 .

PRISMA flow diagram of studies’ screening and selection

Search strategy

A standard search strategy is used in PubMed, then later it is modified according to each specific database to get the best relevant results. The basic search strategy is built based on the research question formulation (i.e., PICO or PICOS). Search strategies are constructed to include free-text terms (e.g., in the title and abstract) and any appropriate subject indexing (e.g., MeSH) expected to retrieve eligible studies, with the help of an expert in the review topic field or an information specialist. Additionally, we advise not to use terms for the Outcomes as their inclusion might hinder the database being searched to retrieve eligible studies because the used outcome is not mentioned obviously in the articles.

The improvement of the search term is made while doing a trial search and looking for another relevant term within each concept from retrieved papers. To search for a clinical trial, we can use these descriptors in PubMed: “clinical trial”[Publication Type] OR “clinical trials as topic”[MeSH terms] OR “clinical trial”[All Fields]. After some rounds of trial and refinement of search term, we formulate the final search term for PubMed as follows: (ebola OR ebola virus OR ebola virus disease OR EVD) AND (vaccine OR vaccination OR vaccinated OR immunization) AND (“clinical trial”[Publication Type] OR “clinical trials as topic”[MeSH Terms] OR “clinical trial”[All Fields]). Because the study for this topic is limited, we do not include outcome term (safety and immunogenicity) in the search term to capture more studies.

Search databases, import all results to a library, and exporting to an excel sheet

According to the AMSTAR guidelines, at least two databases have to be searched in the SR/MA [ 8 ], but as you increase the number of searched databases, you get much yield and more accurate and comprehensive results. The ordering of the databases depends mostly on the review questions; being in a study of clinical trials, you will rely mostly on Cochrane, mRCTs, or International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Here, we propose 12 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, GHL, VHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Clinical trials.gov , mRCTs, POPLINE, and SIGLE), which help to cover almost all published articles in tropical medicine and other health-related fields. Among those databases, POPLINE focuses on reproductive health. Researchers should consider to choose relevant database according to the research topic. Some databases do not support the use of Boolean or quotation; otherwise, there are some databases that have special searching way. Therefore, we need to modify the initial search terms for each database to get appreciated results; therefore, manipulation guides for each online database searches are presented in Additional file 5 : Table S2. The detailed search strategy for each database is found in Additional file 5 : Table S3. The search term that we created in PubMed needs customization based on a specific characteristic of the database. An example for Google Scholar advanced search for our topic is as follows:

With at least one of the words: vaccine vaccination vaccinated immunization

Where my words occur: in the title of the article

Finally, all records are collected into one Endnote library in order to delete duplicates and then to it export into an excel sheet. Using remove duplicating function with two options is mandatory. All references which have (1) the same title and author, and published in the same year, and (2) the same title and author, and published in the same journal, would be deleted. References remaining after this step should be exported to an excel file with essential information for screening. These could be the authors’ names, publication year, journal, DOI, URL link, and abstract.

Protocol writing and registration

Protocol registration at an early stage guarantees transparency in the research process and protects from duplication problems. Besides, it is considered a documented proof of team plan of action, research question, eligibility criteria, intervention/exposure, quality assessment, and pre-analysis plan. It is recommended that researchers send it to the principal investigator (PI) to revise it, then upload it to registry sites. There are many registry sites available for SR/MA like those proposed by Cochrane and Campbell collaborations; however, we recommend registering the protocol into PROSPERO as it is easier. The layout of a protocol template, according to PROSPERO, can be found in Additional file 5 : File S1.

Title and abstract screening

Decisions to select retrieved articles for further assessment are based on eligibility criteria, to minimize the chance of including non-relevant articles. According to the Cochrane guidance, two reviewers are a must to do this step, but as for beginners and junior researchers, this might be tiresome; thus, we propose based on our experience that at least three reviewers should work independently to reduce the chance of error, particularly in teams with a large number of authors to add more scrutiny and ensure proper conduct. Mostly, the quality with three reviewers would be better than two, as two only would have different opinions from each other, so they cannot decide, while the third opinion is crucial. And here are some examples of systematic reviews which we conducted following the same strategy (by a different group of researchers in our research group) and published successfully, and they feature relevant ideas to tropical medicine and disease [ 9 – 11 ].

In this step, duplications will be removed manually whenever the reviewers find them out. When there is a doubt about an article decision, the team should be inclusive rather than exclusive, until the main leader or PI makes a decision after discussion and consensus. All excluded records should be given exclusion reasons.

Full text downloading and screening

Many search engines provide links for free to access full-text articles. In case not found, we can search in some research websites as ResearchGate, which offer an option of direct full-text request from authors. Additionally, exploring archives of wanted journals, or contacting PI to purchase it if available. Similarly, 2–3 reviewers work independently to decide about included full texts according to eligibility criteria, with reporting exclusion reasons of articles. In case any disagreement has occurred, the final decision has to be made by discussion.

Manual search

One has to exhaust all possibilities to reduce bias by performing an explicit hand-searching for retrieval of reports that may have been dropped from first search [ 12 ]. We apply five methods to make manual searching: searching references from included studies/reviews, contacting authors and experts, and looking at related articles/cited articles in PubMed and Google Scholar.

We describe here three consecutive methods to increase and refine the yield of manual searching: firstly, searching reference lists of included articles; secondly, performing what is known as citation tracking in which the reviewers track all the articles that cite each one of the included articles, and this might involve electronic searching of databases; and thirdly, similar to the citation tracking, we follow all “related to” or “similar” articles. Each of the abovementioned methods can be performed by 2–3 independent reviewers, and all the possible relevant article must undergo further scrutiny against the inclusion criteria, after following the same records yielded from electronic databases, i.e., title/abstract and full-text screening.

We propose an independent reviewing by assigning each member of the teams a “tag” and a distinct method, to compile all the results at the end for comparison of differences and discussion and to maximize the retrieval and minimize the bias. Similarly, the number of included articles has to be stated before addition to the overall included records.

Data extraction and quality assessment

This step entitles data collection from included full-texts in a structured extraction excel sheet, which is previously pilot-tested for extraction using some random studies. We recommend extracting both adjusted and non-adjusted data because it gives the most allowed confounding factor to be used in the analysis by pooling them later [ 13 ]. The process of extraction should be executed by 2–3 independent reviewers. Mostly, the sheet is classified into the study and patient characteristics, outcomes, and quality assessment (QA) tool.

Data presented in graphs should be extracted by software tools such as Web plot digitizer [ 14 ]. Most of the equations that can be used in extraction prior to analysis and estimation of standard deviation (SD) from other variables is found inside Additional file 5 : File S2 with their references as Hozo et al. [ 15 ], Xiang et al. [ 16 ], and Rijkom et al. [ 17 ]. A variety of tools are available for the QA, depending on the design: ROB-2 Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials [ 18 ] which is presented as Additional file 1 : Figure S1 and Additional file 2 : Figure S2—from a previous published article data—[ 19 ], NIH tool for observational and cross-sectional studies [ 20 ], ROBINS-I tool for non-randomize trials [ 21 ], QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies, QUIPS tool for prognostic studies, CARE tool for case reports, and ToxRtool for in vivo and in vitro studies. We recommend that 2–3 reviewers independently assess the quality of the studies and add to the data extraction form before the inclusion into the analysis to reduce the risk of bias. In the NIH tool for observational studies—cohort and cross-sectional—as in this EBOLA case, to evaluate the risk of bias, reviewers should rate each of the 14 items into dichotomous variables: yes, no, or not applicable. An overall score is calculated by adding all the items scores as yes equals one, while no and NA equals zero. A score will be given for every paper to classify them as poor, fair, or good conducted studies, where a score from 0–5 was considered poor, 6–9 as fair, and 10–14 as good.

In the EBOLA case example above, authors can extract the following information: name of authors, country of patients, year of publication, study design (case report, cohort study, or clinical trial or RCT), sample size, the infected point of time after EBOLA infection, follow-up interval after vaccination time, efficacy, safety, adverse effects after vaccinations, and QA sheet (Additional file 6 : Data S1).

Data checking

Due to the expected human error and bias, we recommend a data checking step, in which every included article is compared with its counterpart in an extraction sheet by evidence photos, to detect mistakes in data. We advise assigning articles to 2–3 independent reviewers, ideally not the ones who performed the extraction of those articles. When resources are limited, each reviewer is assigned a different article than the one he extracted in the previous stage.

Statistical analysis

Investigators use different methods for combining and summarizing findings of included studies. Before analysis, there is an important step called cleaning of data in the extraction sheet, where the analyst organizes extraction sheet data in a form that can be read by analytical software. The analysis consists of 2 types namely qualitative and quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis mostly describes data in SR studies, while quantitative analysis consists of two main types: MA and network meta-analysis (NMA). Subgroup, sensitivity, cumulative analyses, and meta-regression are appropriate for testing whether the results are consistent or not and investigating the effect of certain confounders on the outcome and finding the best predictors. Publication bias should be assessed to investigate the presence of missing studies which can affect the summary.

To illustrate basic meta-analysis, we provide an imaginary data for the research question about Ebola vaccine safety (in terms of adverse events, 14 days after injection) and immunogenicity (Ebola virus antibodies rise in geometric mean titer, 6 months after injection). Assuming that from searching and data extraction, we decided to do an analysis to evaluate Ebola vaccine “A” safety and immunogenicity. Other Ebola vaccines were not meta-analyzed because of the limited number of studies (instead, it will be included for narrative review). The imaginary data for vaccine safety meta-analysis can be accessed in Additional file 7 : Data S2. To do the meta-analysis, we can use free software, such as RevMan [ 22 ] or R package meta [ 23 ]. In this example, we will use the R package meta. The tutorial of meta package can be accessed through “General Package for Meta-Analysis” tutorial pdf [ 23 ]. The R codes and its guidance for meta-analysis done can be found in Additional file 5 : File S3.

For the analysis, we assume that the study is heterogenous in nature; therefore, we choose a random effect model. We did an analysis on the safety of Ebola vaccine A. From the data table, we can see some adverse events occurring after intramuscular injection of vaccine A to the subject of the study. Suppose that we include six studies that fulfill our inclusion criteria. We can do a meta-analysis for each of the adverse events extracted from the studies, for example, arthralgia, from the results of random effect meta-analysis using the R meta package.

From the results shown in Additional file 3 : Figure S3, we can see that the odds ratio (OR) of arthralgia is 1.06 (0.79; 1.42), p value = 0.71, which means that there is no association between the intramuscular injection of Ebola vaccine A and arthralgia, as the OR is almost one, and besides, the P value is insignificant as it is > 0.05.

In the meta-analysis, we can also visualize the results in a forest plot. It is shown in Fig. ​ Fig.3 3 an example of a forest plot from the simulated analysis.

Random effect model forest plot for comparison of vaccine A versus placebo

From the forest plot, we can see six studies (A to F) and their respective OR (95% CI). The green box represents the effect size (in this case, OR) of each study. The bigger the box means the study weighted more (i.e., bigger sample size). The blue diamond shape represents the pooled OR of the six studies. We can see the blue diamond cross the vertical line OR = 1, which indicates no significance for the association as the diamond almost equalized in both sides. We can confirm this also from the 95% confidence interval that includes one and the p value > 0.05.

For heterogeneity, we see that I 2 = 0%, which means no heterogeneity is detected; the study is relatively homogenous (it is rare in the real study). To evaluate publication bias related to the meta-analysis of adverse events of arthralgia, we can use the metabias function from the R meta package (Additional file 4 : Figure S4) and visualization using a funnel plot. The results of publication bias are demonstrated in Fig. ​ Fig.4. 4 . We see that the p value associated with this test is 0.74, indicating symmetry of the funnel plot. We can confirm it by looking at the funnel plot.

Publication bias funnel plot for comparison of vaccine A versus placebo

Looking at the funnel plot, the number of studies at the left and right side of the funnel plot is the same; therefore, the plot is symmetry, indicating no publication bias detected.

Sensitivity analysis is a procedure used to discover how different values of an independent variable will influence the significance of a particular dependent variable by removing one study from MA. If all included study p values are < 0.05, hence, removing any study will not change the significant association. It is only performed when there is a significant association, so if the p value of MA done is 0.7—more than one—the sensitivity analysis is not needed for this case study example. If there are 2 studies with p value > 0.05, removing any of the two studies will result in a loss of the significance.

Double data checking

For more assurance on the quality of results, the analyzed data should be rechecked from full-text data by evidence photos, to allow an obvious check for the PI of the study.

Manuscript writing, revision, and submission to a journal

Writing based on four scientific sections: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, mostly with a conclusion. Performing a characteristic table for study and patient characteristics is a mandatory step which can be found as a template in Additional file 5 : Table S3.

After finishing the manuscript writing, characteristics table, and PRISMA flow diagram, the team should send it to the PI to revise it well and reply to his comments and, finally, choose a suitable journal for the manuscript which fits with considerable impact factor and fitting field. We need to pay attention by reading the author guidelines of journals before submitting the manuscript.

The role of evidence-based medicine in biomedical research is rapidly growing. SR/MAs are also increasing in the medical literature. This paper has sought to provide a comprehensive approach to enable reviewers to produce high-quality SR/MAs. We hope that readers could gain general knowledge about how to conduct a SR/MA and have the confidence to perform one, although this kind of study requires complex steps compared to narrative reviews.

Having the basic steps for conduction of MA, there are many advanced steps that are applied for certain specific purposes. One of these steps is meta-regression which is performed to investigate the association of any confounder and the results of the MA. Furthermore, there are other types rather than the standard MA like NMA and MA. In NMA, we investigate the difference between several comparisons when there were not enough data to enable standard meta-analysis. It uses both direct and indirect comparisons to conclude what is the best between the competitors. On the other hand, mega MA or MA of patients tend to summarize the results of independent studies by using its individual subject data. As a more detailed analysis can be done, it is useful in conducting repeated measure analysis and time-to-event analysis. Moreover, it can perform analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis; however, it requires homogenous dataset and it is time-consuming in conduct [ 24 ].

Conclusions

Systematic review/meta-analysis steps include development of research question and its validation, forming criteria, search strategy, searching databases, importing all results to a library and exporting to an excel sheet, protocol writing and registration, title and abstract screening, full-text screening, manual searching, extracting data and assessing its quality, data checking, conducting statistical analysis, double data checking, manuscript writing, revising, and submitting to a journal.

Additional files

Figure S1. Risk of bias assessment graph of included randomized controlled trials. (TIF 20 kb)

Figure S2. Risk of bias assessment summary. (TIF 69 kb)

Figure S3. Arthralgia results of random effect meta-analysis using R meta package. (TIF 20 kb)

Figure S4. Arthralgia linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry using R meta package. (TIF 13 kb)

Table S1. PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Table S2. Manipulation guides for online database searches. Table S3. Detailed search strategy for twelve database searches. Table S4. Baseline characteristics of the patients in the included studies. File S1. PROSPERO protocol template file. File S2. Extraction equations that can be used prior to analysis to get missed variables. File S3. R codes and its guidance for meta-analysis done for comparison between EBOLA vaccine A and placebo. (DOCX 49 kb)

Data S1. Extraction and quality assessment data sheets for EBOLA case example. (XLSX 1368 kb)

Data S2. Imaginary data for EBOLA case example. (XLSX 10 kb)

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations, authors’ contributions.

NTH and GMT were responsible for the idea and its design. The figure was done by GMT. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing and approval of the final version.

This study was conducted (in part) at the Joint Usage/Research Center on Tropical Disease, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Japan.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Gehad Mohamed Tawfik, Email: [email protected] .

Kadek Agus Surya Dila, Email: moc.liamg@alidayrussugakedak .

Muawia Yousif Fadlelmola Mohamed, Email: moc.oohay@fusuyaiwaom .

Dao Ngoc Hien Tam, Email: moc.liamg@matneihcognoad .

Nguyen Dang Kien, Email: moc.liamg@1915neikgnadneyugn .

Ali Mahmoud Ahmed, Email: [email protected] .

Nguyen Tien Huy, Phone: 81-95-819-7558, Email: moc.oohay@yuhneitgn , Email: nv.ude.utdt@yuhneitneyugn .

Research Guides

Systematic reviews and related evidence syntheses: proposal.

• Standards & Guidelines

Getting started with proposal of review

The proposal stage is the most important step of a review project as it determines the feasibility of the review and its rationale.

The steps are: 

1. Determining review question and review type. 

• Right Review : free tool to assist in selecting best review type for a given question
• Trying to choose between a scoping or a systematic review? try this article- Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C.  et al.   Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol   18 , 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
• This article provides 10 different types of questions that systematic reviews can answer- Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E. et al.  What kind of systematic review should I conduct?  A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 5 (2018).  
• For scoping reviews, the framework is: Population, Concept, Context (see JBI Scoping Review guide )

2. Search for related reviews to proposed question. Places to search include:

• Prospero : database of protocols for systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, and rapid reviews with human health outcomes
• Open Science Framework : open access registry for any type of research, including scoping reviews and more
• Cochrane Collaboration Handbook : systematic reviews of clinical interventions
• Campbell Collaboration : accepts many types reviews across many disciplines: Business and Management, Crime and Justice, Disability, Education, International Development, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, Methods, Nutrition, and Social Welfare

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence : reviews in environmental research

Systematic Reviews for Animals & Food (SYREAF) : protocols and reviews on animals and food science related to animals

Also, consider searching subject related databases, adding a search concept "review"

3. Evaluate previous reviews for quality, as well as comparing their scope to the proposed review. The following tools can be used to 

• ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews)

AMSTAR : Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews, for meta-analysis

• CASP Checklist : Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

4. Further refine question by defining the eligibility criteria

• Eligibility criteria are the characteristics of the studies/research to be collected. Inclusion criteria are those characteristics a study must have to be include. Exclusion criteria are exceptions to the inclusion criteria.

5. Develop a preliminary search and find a few studies that match the eligibility criteria

• Consider working with a librarian to develop a search. The purpose is to estimate the number of citations to be sorted (giving some idea of the amount time it will take complete the review) and to find at least a few studies that match the criteria.

6. Summarize proposal : A written proposal helps in framing the project and getting feedback. It should include:

• A descriptive title of project, which includes the type of review
• A brief introduction
• A description of previous reviews and the rationale for the proposed review
• An appropriate framed question for the review
• The eligibility criteria
• << Previous: About
• Next: Standards & Guidelines >>
• Last Updated: Apr 4, 2024 12:34 PM
• URL: https://tamu.libguides.com/systematic_reviews

The Graduate Health & Life Sciences Research Library at Georgetown University Medical Center

Systematic reviews.

• Should I do a systematic review?
• Writing the Protocol
• Building a Systematic Search
• Where to Search
• Managing Project Data
• How can a DML librarian help?

How do I write a protocol?

The protocol serves as a roadmap for your review and specifies the objectives, methods, and outcomes of primary interest of the systematic review. Having a protocol promotes transparency and can be helpful for project management. Some journals require you to submit your protocol along with your manuscript. 

A good way to familiarize yourself with research protocols is to take a look at those registered on PROSPERO. PROSPERO's registration form includes 22 mandatory fields and 18 optional fields which will help you to explain every aspect of your research plan. 

• PROSPERO - International prospective register of systematic reviews

A protocol ideally includes the following:

• Databases to be searched and additional sources (particularly for grey literature)
• Keywords to be used in the search strategy
• Limits applied to the search
• Screening process
• Data to be extracted
• Summary of data to be reported

Once you have written your protocol, it is advisable to register it. Registering your protocol is a good way to announce that you are working on a review, so that others do not start working on it.

The University of Warwick's protocol template is available below and is a great tool for planning your protocol. 

• << Previous: Should I do a systematic review?
• Next: Building a Systematic Search >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 9:22 AM
• URL: https://guides.dml.georgetown.edu/systematicreviews

The Responsible Use of Electronic Resources policy governs the use of resources provided on these guides. © Dahlgren Memorial Library, Georgetown University Medical Center. Unless otherwise stated, these guides may be used for educational or academic purposes as long as proper attribution is given. Please seek permission for any modifications, adaptations, or for commercial purposes. Email [email protected] to request permission. Proper attribution includes: Written by or adapted from, Dahlgren Memorial Library, URL.

A young researcher's guide to a systematic review

Planning to Write

Types of articles: A guide for young researchers

Today, young researchers wish to start publishing articles early on in their career. However, they are often unsure of what type of article they wish to write and how to approach this task. This series provides detailed guidance to young researchers about different article types that journals publish and the standard requirements, procedures, and approach to each type.

Kakoli Majumder

February 20, 2015

826.2k views

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide…

March 1, 2015

98.4k views

A young researcher's guide to writing an original…

April 2, 2015

177.9k views

A young researcher's guide to writing a…

April 29, 2015

543.5k views

May 11, 2015

14.1k views

Quiz: How much do you know about academic…

June 8, 2015

A young researcher's guide to writing a clinical…

July 24, 2015

18.9k views

A young researcher's guide to a clinical trial

September 2, 2015

230.2k views

A young researcher's guide to perspective, …

Key takeaways:

• A systematic review is a thorough and detailed review of existing literature on a particular topic, designed to address a specific question.
• Systematic reviews are especially important in evidence-based medicine.
• A good systematic review begins with a protocol that defines the study design, objectives, and expected outcomes; follows the PRISMA guidelines, and should be registered in a recognized protocol registry.
• This article covers the basics of how to approach a systematic review and how such a review is typically structured.

What is a systematic review?

A systematic review is a highly rigorous review of existing literature that addresses a clearly formulated question. The review systematically searches, identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesizes research evidence relevant to the question using methodology that is explicit, reproducible, and leads to minimum bias. Systematic reviews are regarded as the best source of research evidence. Systematic reviews are absolutely crucial in the field of evidence-based medicine, but are also highly valued in other fields.

A systematic review is more exhaustive than a literature review as it includes both published and unpublished literature, often called grey literature. Grey literature is a significant part of a systematic review and adds value to the review. This is because grey literature is often more current than published literature and is likely to have less publication bias. Grey literature includes unpublished studies, reports, dissertations, conference papers and abstracts, governmental research, and ongoing clinical trials.

Conducting a systematic review is a complex process. This article aims to guide you on the different kinds of systematic review, the standard procedures to be followed, and the best approach to conducting and writing a systematic review.

Types of systematic reviews

• Qualitative: In this type of systematic review, the results of relevant studies are summarized but not statistically combined.
• Quantitative: This type of systematic review uses statistical methods to combine the results of two or more studies.
• Meta-analysis: A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to integrate estimates of effect from relevant studies that are independent but similar and summarize them.

Writing a protocol

Any good systematic review begins with a protocol. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) , a protocol serves as a road-map for your review and specifies the objectives, methods, and outcomes of primary interest of the systematic review. The purpose of having a protocol is to promote transparency of methods.

A protocol defines the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data that will be analyzed, etc. The protocol needs to be submitted to the journal along with your manuscript. Most journals expect authors of systematic reviews to use the PRISMA statement or similar other guidelines to write their protocol.

The PRISMA Statement:

Anybody writing a systematic literature review should be familiar with the PRISMA statement . The PRISMA Statement is a document that consists of a 27-item checklist  and a flow diagram and aims to guide authors on how to develop a systematic review protocol and what to include when writing the review.

A protocol ideally includes the following:

• Databases to be searched and additional sources (particularly for grey literature)
• Keywords to be used in the search strategy
• Limits applied to the search.
• Screening process
• Data to be extracted
• Summary of data to be reported

Registering systematic review protocols:

Once you have written your protocol, it is advisable to register it. Registering your protocol is a good way to announce that you are working on a review, so that others do not start working on it.

The available protocol registries for systematic reviews are:

• Campbell Collaboration : Specific to systematic reviews of social interventions
• Cochrane Collaboration : Specific to systematic reviews of health care interventions
• PROSPERO  : An open registry for all systematic reviews

The registries also provide a searchable database of registered reviews. Before starting a systematic review, you should search these databases for any registered reviews on the topic of your choice. This will ensure that you are not duplicating efforts.

What is the best approach to conducting a systematic review?

The essence of a systematic review lies in being systematic. A systematic review involves detailed scrutiny and analysis of a huge mass of literature. To ensure that your work is efficient and effective, you should follow a clear process :

1.  Develop a research question

2.  Define inclusion and exclusion criteria

3.  Locate studies 

4.  Select studies

5.  Assess study quality

6.  Extract data

7.  Analyze and present results

8.  Interpret results

9.  Update the review as needed

It is helpful to follow this process and make notes at each stage. This will make it easier for you to write the review article.

How is a systematic review article structured?

A systematic review article follows the same structure as that of an original research article. It typically includes a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.  

Title: The title should accurately reflect the topic under review. Typically, the words “a systematic review” are a part of the title to make the nature of the study clear.

Abstract: A systematic review usually has a structured Abstract, with a short paragraph devoted to each of the following: background, methods, results, and conclusion. 

Introduction : The Introduction summarizes the topic and explains why the systematic review was conducted. There might have been gaps in the existing knowledge or a disagreement in the literature that necessitated a review. The introduction should also state the purpose and aims of the review.

Methods: The Methods section is the most crucial part of a systematic review article. The methodology followed should be explained clearly and logically. The following components should be discussed in detail:

• Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Identification of studies
• Study selection
• Data extraction
• Quality assessment
• Data analysis

Results: The Results section should also be explained logically. You can begin by describing the search results, and then move on to the study range and characteristics, study quality, and finally discuss the effect of the intervention on the outcome.

Discussion: The Discussion should summarize the main findings from the review and then move on to discuss the limitations of the study and the reliability of the results. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the review should be discussed, and implications for current practice suggested.

References: The References section of a systematic review article usually contains an extensive number of references. You have to be very careful and ensure that you do not miss out on a single one. You can consider using reference management software to help you tackle the references effectively. 

You might also be interested in reading the folloowing related articles:

• Which is easier to publish - an original research article or a review article?
• A young researcher's guide to writing a literature review
• 6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career researchers

If you have any doubts or questions, you can post them in the comments section below. Alternatively, you can also a question on our Q&A forum  if you are facing a problem and need expert publication advice. 

for this article

Published on: Apr 29, 2015

• Review Article
• Academic Writing
• Journal Article Types

You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!

Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.

One click sign-in with your social accounts

Sign up via email

1536 visitors saw this today and 1210 signed up.

Subscribe to Conducting Research

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Related Reading

6 Article types that journals publish: A guide for early career…

The basics of converting your PhD thesis into journal articles

A young researcher's guide to writing a clinical case report

A young researcher's guide to a systematic review 6 min read

Secondary research – the basics of narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis 6 min read

Quality of reporting in scientific publications: A report from the 2017 Peer Review Congress 4 min read

Quality of scientific literature: A report from the 2017 Peer Review Congress 6 min read

How to write the literature review of your research paper 7 min read

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest

Doing a systematic review

Creating a protocol, pico framework for structuring your research, alternative frameworks.

• Step 2: choosing where to search
• Step 3: developing a search strategy
• Step 4: running & recording your search
• Step 5: managing your search results
• Step 6: screening & evaluating
• Step 7: synthesis and writing it up (including PRISMA flow diagrams)

Finding reviews in progress and examples

Use the PROSPERO database to find examples of protocols and details of reviews in progress. If you are planning to publish your review check PROSPERO to make sure someone isn't already investigating that area. It is also a good idea to register your own review here once you've established its uniqueness.

• PROSPERO This international database covers prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related outcome.

Software for managing your review

• RevMan Review Manager (RevMan) is Cochrane's software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews, although it can be used for non-Cochrane reviews too. If you are doing a professional systematic review leading to publication you may wish to consider using it to help manage the process. RevMan facilitates preparation of protocols and full reviews, including text, characteristics of studies, comparison tables, and study data. It can perform meta-analysis of the data entered, and present results graphically.

• research question and aims
• criteria for inclusion and exclusion
• search strategy
• selecting studies for inclusion
• quality assessment
• data extraction & analysis
• synthesis of results
• dissemination
• time frame.

You may wish to do some scoping searches of relevant databases to find out how much has been written, and what limits you should apply.

• Systematic review protocol template Use this Word document to help you plan your review and develop your protocol
• Systematic review protocol example An example of using the protocol template to plan a systematic review.
• The review protocol Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination this detailed guidance covers elements to consider when creating a review protocol.
• Watch our video introductions to doing a systematic review Watch video 2 in our series of videos on doing a systematic review for brief guidance on creating your protocol.

There are several different frameworks you can use to help structure your research and ensure you have clear parameters for your search. The most commonly used one used for health-related reviews is the PICO framework:

• Population This could be the general population, or a specific group defined by: age (e.g. infants, children, adolescents, elderly); socioeconomic status (e.g. low-income, homeless); risk status; location (rural or urban)
• Intervention Refers to the therapy, test, strategy to be investigated (e.g. drug, behavioural change, environmental factors, counselling)
• Comparator A measure you will use to compare results against (e.g. no treatment, alternative treatment/exposure, standard/routine interventions)
• Outcome What outcome is significant to your population or issue? This may be different from the outcome measures used in the studies.

PICO example

This example is extracted from: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018100888 .

Further information

• Developing an efficient search strategy using PICO A tool created by Health Evidence which can be used to: develop a clear, answerable question that can be used to generate a search strategy; identify key search terms to facilitate a more efficient search; and to document search strategies/terms for future search updates, either in the same or similar topics.

Another framework may be more suitable depending on your review topic. Here are some other options:

• PECO – Population | Environment | Comparison | Outcome Very similar to PICO but looking at the effect of exposure to something e.g. smoky atmosphere
• SPICE - Setting | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Evaluation Another variant of PICO but this time including the setting (where? in what context?)
• CIMO - Context | Intervention | Mechanisms | Outcome A variant of PICO suitable for management and organisation studies
• ECLIPSE - Expectation | Client group | Location | Impact | Professionals | SErvice Recommended for health policy/management searches
• SPIDER – Sample | Phenomenon of Interest | Design | Evaluation | Research Type Developed to create effective search strategies of qualitative and mixed-methods research - more specific than PICO/PECO
• Developing a research question This guide from the University of Maryland includes a comprehensive list of other frameworks.
• How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information Article about the development of the ECLIPSE framework.
• Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. A comparison of the PICO and SPIDER frameworks for creating search strategies.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Step 2: choosing where to search >>
• Last Updated: Apr 23, 2024 2:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/systematic-review

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research Proposal for a Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Community Interventions in

The documented health effects of smoking are perhaps the most fundamental motivators of the efforts to curtail tobacco use. The efforts can be the work of governments or independent bodies that are concerned about the public health due to for instance the economic implications of smoking-related health diseases particularly on low-income earners. By illustration, governments may adopt statutory policies to curtail smoking by designating smoke zones and instituting legal penalties against individuals that smoke beyond such areas. Nevertheless, such measures, however stringent are undermined by their coercive nature that restricts smoking in public arenas but provides no incentive to curtail smoking at the household level. As such, the efficacy of affirmative action depends on the motivation that such provides to the person to quit tobacco use. For example, community efforts might be more impactful when they are frequently held to sensitize the population on the actual effects of tobacco use on health and the economic status of the family. The challenges to the mitigation strategies stem in principal from the business community thus detracting from the full impact of the efforts. In the light of the varying efficiency of tobacco use mitigation efforts, this paper presents a protocol for a systematic review of community interventions to prevent smoking among adults in the United Kingdom.

Related Papers

Central European Journal of Public Health

Egemen Ünal

Janet Ferguson , Amanda Amos

Tobacco Control

Christine Godfrey

Preventive Medicine

Lynne Parkinson

Public Health

Richard Edwards

Linda Bauld

Amanda Amos , Martin White

Drug and alcohol review

Prabhat Jha

Cigarette smoking and other tobacco use imposes a huge and growing public health burden globally. Currently, approximately 5 million people are killed annually by tobacco use; by 2030, estimates based on current trends indicate that this number will increase to 10 million, with 70% of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Numerous studies from high-income countries, and a growing number from low- and middle-income countries, provide strong evidence that tobacco tax increases, dissemination of information about health risks from smoking, restrictions on smoking in public places and in work-places, comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion and increased access to cessation therapies are all effective in reducing tobacco use and its consequences. Despite this evidence, tobacco control policies have been unevenly applied—due partly to political constraints. This paper provides a summary of these issues, beginning with an overview of trends in global tobacco use and its consequences and followed by a review of the evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control policies in reducing tobacco use. A description of the types and comprehensiveness of policies currently in place and a discussion of some of the factors correlated with the strength and comprehensive of these policies follows.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Sajal Chattopadhyay

Afaf Girgis

RELATED PAPERS

Inger Cecilie Frisvoll

Ödül Bozkurt

Bughsin Djath

Acta Tropica

Marine Wasniewski

Indian Journal of Pathology and Oncology

ALKA GOSAVI

Genetics and Molecular Research

Samuel Adjei

Journal of Neural Transmission

Gondwana Research

Anne NEDELEC

Veterinary Research Communications

ADIVANE TEREZINHA COSTA

Environmental Practice

Acta Neurológica Colombiana

Mario Iván Ruano Restrepo

Jurnal PAI Raden Fatah

Ahmad Syarifuddin

Letras De Hoje Estudos E Debates De Assuntos De Linguistica Literatura E Lingua Portuguesa

Cristina Perna

Ashlee Humphreys

Laser and Particle Beams

Alexander Fertman

SPIE Proceedings

Leonid Glebov

Josep-Ignasi Saranyana Closa

Jurnal Abdimas Bina Bangsa

Bambang D Suseno

Candice Flowe

César Torres Martín

J. Wiley eBooks

Dave Bartram

澳洲假文凭办理Melb Uni毕业证书 买墨尔本大学毕业证成绩单,

David Axlyn McLeod

Journal of Human Ecology

Elmarie Slabbert

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024